I have the i3 530 and an Athlon II X2 240, both good value CPUs. I don't need high-performance CPUs, so efficiency (esp low idle power) and value are more important.

It's interesting to see the difference the motherboard makes in terms of efficiency. For example, Intel mini-ITX boards appear to be consistently more efficient than others: your review of the Gigabyte LGA1156 board shows it idles at 27W and the Intel board at 17W, whereas the Asus P7H55D-M EVO pumps away at 31W.

There is a 13W difference in idle power between the Intel DH55TC and the Asus P7H55D-M EVO LGA1156 board that you use in the review. However there is very little difference in efficiency between the Intel and Asus LGA1155 P67 boards. This skews your results, as you acknowledge, but it does show that Clarkdale is still a very good CPU for energy efficiency.

Given that my PC spends most of its time idle or under low load, for me the lower idle power of the Clarkdale gives it the edge if teamed with an efficient board like the Intel DH57JG or the ECS H55H-I.

Since AMD has quad cores and even energy efficient ones in that price range its funny you didn't include any. I won't dispute the fact that the current AMD generation is bad but still some of them are good value and for those interested they allow overclocking without a premium.

Since AMD has quad cores and even energy efficient ones in that price range its funny you didn't include any. I won't dispute the fact that the current AMD generation is bad but still some of them are good value and for those interested they allow overclocking without a premium.

Agreed. Everyone knows that AMD's are old, but making graphs with only their dual core X2's, which are made with an older 45 nm process and has only two threads, looks strange.If you give us the benchmarks for the X2 250 and the X2 265, the benchmarks for the X2 255 could be left out, giving room for a X4 645.

Unlike the 1155 CPU's, the AM3 CPU's works in many motherboards made in 2006, five years old. That alone is a big reason to show people they're are capable of.AMD's current desktop CPU's uses more power, but I think many budget-minded upgraders are willing to accept that. After all, they're not hard to keep cool, unlike the least favorable CPU's back in 2005.

It would be kind of cool if the weighted graph actually shaded each bar for price/performance/power. If actual values were posted it would also allow for quick re-weighting based on personal preference (ie 2:2:1, etc). But just the shading would be neat.

If you give us the benchmarks for the X2 250 and the X2 265, the benchmarks for the X2 255 could be left out, giving room for a X4 645.

I agree! The competition for Core i3-2100 isn't Athlon II X2 but X4, since the 2100 has HT.

Also, the Athlon II X2 is a very good buy when you never need much processing power but low price. Half price CPU and 2/3 price motherboard does get you quite a bit in the right direction.Phenom II X2 has never been a good buy.

Mats wrote:

Unlike the 1155 CPU's, the AM3 CPU's works in many motherboards made in 2006, five years old. ...

... and they will probably work just as well in the next generation of motherboards, with socket AM3+.Fitting three generation of sockets and even more generations of chipsets is quite a feat!

Unlike the 1155 CPU's, the AM3 CPU's works in many motherboards made in 2006, five years old. ...

... and they will probably work just as well in the next generation of motherboards, with socket AM3+.Fitting three generation of sockets and even more generations of chipsets is quite a feat!

Unfortunately the AM3+ CPU will not satisfy this statement. Then again, its about time they dropped the DDR2 controller

Personally I care much more about the forward compatibility of the processor than the motherboard, since the processor is much less likely to be the point of failure. And AMD has much better motherboard forward compatibility than CPU forward compatibility (not that Intel has any trans generational compatibility at all). It is a blessing that AM2+ motherboards are still sold (edit: en masse), for those with a dead AM2 motherboard, but sadly AM3+ will probably bring this to an end.

Awesome. Sandy Bridge looks so efficient, but it's funny to realize that AMD (who did quad core first) has been doing quad core so long that they really aren't making new dual cores. It's a shame. I would have loved to have seen a modern 35nm dual core from AMD. I don't like their market strategy right now- instead of pushing for ultimate efficiency and value, they are going for big clock speeds and many cores instead. Oh well.

I do like my i5-750 still. My system only uses about 50W at idle, after power supply efficiency is considered.

The competition for Core i3-2100 isn't Athlon II X2 but X4, since the 2100 has HT.

Yeah, there are differrent ways to pick contenders for a CPU review, you look at core count, thread count, performance, cost, power draw etc.This review shows that the used CPU's are too far away from each other in four of the five aspects above, it's too much of an unbalanced review.

Core count or thread count is quite theoretical for most end users, people want top performance, lowest power draw, or best bang for buck or a combination of those.Pick a X4 645 or even a Phenom X4 955 ($10 above the i3 2100, but with MB it will still be lower), the performance lead gets smaller.The i3 2100 is close to the 955 in Anandtechs test, in terms of performance and cost, and the thread count is the same.Check it out: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=88

But then again, I have no idea how much SPCR can pick and choose between different models for test samples.

Olle P wrote:

Phenom II X2 has never been a good buy.

It was quite popular until Athlon X3 an X4 showed up, but now it isn't the obvious choice.

djkest wrote:

Awesome. Sandy Bridge looks so efficient, but it's funny to realize that AMD (who did quad core first) has been doing quad core so long that they really aren't making new dual cores.

What are you talking about? Athlon II X2 is pretty much as new as the Athlon II X4.

djkest wrote:

It's a shame. I would have loved to have seen a modern 35nm dual core from AMD.I don't like their market strategy right now- instead of pushing for ultimate efficiency and value, they are going for big clock speeds and many cores instead. Oh well.

That's because they can't keep up with Intel in this regard, you can't misinterpret this as a deliberate choice. Intel have sold 32 nm CPU's for over a year, AMD is still on 45 nm.It's not their market strategy, AMD is doing the best they can with what they have.

When you consider cost it's important to note the price difference between DDR2 and DDR3. DDR2 is slower and costs 40 to 50% more. If you already own DDR2 sticks you can use the AMD system is much cheaper. If you don't the cost of ram makes up for the mother board price difference.

The i3 2100t is clocked about 20% slower so it should preform about 20% as well as the standard 2100 model. the 65watt models seem to idle around the same as the 95w models so I would also assume that the T model doesn't idle lower. I don't think the 2100T model makes much more sense because it costs slightly more and is significantly slower.

The 2100T is listed by Intel as 35w Max TDP versus 65w for the 2100. It is a 2.5 Ghz part rather than 3.1 Ghz, and the graphics base frequency is 650 MHz rather than 850 MHz. All other specs are exactly the same. Neither the 2100T nor the 2100 have turbo boost.

I would guess that although the 2100T is slower than the vanilla 2100 it will, at 2.5 Ghz, still be no slouch. Clearly if you want a cool, quiet system then that 35w TDP must be a major attraction. Here is the UK the 2100T is priced only a touch more than X2 565, but a CPU/motherboard combo with either CPU could easily be the same cost. Given the efficiencies and performance of Intel 2nd generation .32 i3 CPUs I can't see any rational reason why anyone would opt for the X2 565 instead. Agreed AMD may have been expecting that their dated .45 technology CPUs would have been replaced by Bulldozer by now, but it hasn't happened and I guess that AMD are in for a somewhat uncomfortable time in the market place until it does appear.

There is a 2100T/H67 review here http://www.missingremote.com/review/intel-core-i3-2100t-and-bh67cf-mini-itx-motherboard. It suggests better than Core i5 661 performance in a batch of media related benches, with "....an average idle draw of only 14.5W and a maximum of 43.1W....". This also seems to pay off in quietness terms, e.g. ".... (a) spare LGA1566 i5 HSF, initially used with the i5-2500K and later replaced because it was too loud, was whisper quiet in operation when used with the i3-2100T....". So not just marketing but a genuinely decently performing CPU with a minimal energy consumption footprint, and quiet even with an Intel stock cooler.

When are people going to stop looking at the TDP as if it was the only thing that mattered?TDP is a LIMIT. If you have a CPU with 95 W TDP, it can consume 50 W, or 62 W, or 73.334 W, or some other value during full load, but most likely it isn't close to 95 W.

Frankly speaking, Core i5-2400S not only performs worse than Core i5-2400, but also can’t boast the best performance-per-watt ratio, which is pretty strange for an energy-efficient model. On the other hand, even regular Sandy Bridge processors do not consume that much power to begin with and may suit perfectly fine for small and quiet systems. So, solutions like Core i5-2400S are mostly niche products rather than an appealing option for home and HTPC systems, because you can always go with a faster and cheaper Core i5-2300 instead of Core i5-2400S without any harm to the system power consumption.

There is a 2100T/H67 review here http://www.missingremote.com/review/intel-core-i3-2100t-and-bh67cf-mini-itx-motherboard. It suggests better than Core i5 661 performance in a batch of media related benches, with "....an average idle draw of only 14.5W and a maximum of 43.1W....". This also seems to pay off in quietness terms, e.g. ".... (a) spare LGA1566 i5 HSF, initially used with the i5-2500K and later replaced because it was too loud, was whisper quiet in operation when used with the i3-2100T....". So not just marketing but a genuinely decently performing CPU with a minimal energy consumption footprint, and quiet even with an Intel stock cooler.

I really don't see the point. The standard 65W TDP version so easy to run super-quietly w/ extremely low power draw, and at idle, there is no difference. There's no way a 30W difference exists in real apps between the two processors. It's only if you are considering some kind of embedded fanless or battery/solar powered system that the T version might make more sense, and in such apps, a mobile processor (and chipset) will be better suited. Personally, I'd go for the faster, cheaper chip in 98% of conceivable apps and use underclocking/volting if I really need lower power draw.

There is a 2100T/H67 review here http://www.missingremote.com/review/intel-core-i3-2100t-and-bh67cf-mini-itx-motherboard. It suggests better than Core i5 661 performance in a batch of media related benches, with "....an average idle draw of only 14.5W and a maximum of 43.1W....". This also seems to pay off in quietness terms, e.g. ".... (a) spare LGA1566 i5 HSF, initially used with the i5-2500K and later replaced because it was too loud, was whisper quiet in operation when used with the i3-2100T....". So not just marketing but a genuinely decently performing CPU with a minimal energy consumption footprint, and quiet even with an Intel stock cooler.

I really don't see the point. The standard 65W TDP version so easy to run super-quietly w/ extremely low power draw, and at idle, there is no difference. There's no way a 30W difference exists in real apps between the two processors. It's only if you are considering some kind of embedded fanless or battery/solar powered system that the T version might make more sense, and in such apps, a mobile processor (and chipset) will be better suited. Personally, I'd go for the faster, cheaper chip in 98% of conceivable apps and use underclocking/volting if I really need lower power draw.

It seems like something important is being said here, but it is going over my head. Can anyone summarize what they are saying.

It seems like something important is being said here, but it is going over my head. Can anyone summarize what they are saying.

Only that as Mats wrote, Energy efficient CPU models is pure marketing -- not exactly nonsense imo, but corporate buyers who want to adhere to some green initiative (or what have you) are asked to cough up more dough for the privilege of being able to declare that they use lower TDP chips. Or perhaps for use in "eco" systems made by the big PC companies like HP, Dell, etc. I doubt many retail/DIY consumers opt for them.

I have been keeping my eye out for reviews on the i3 2100. The Zacate based motherboards also look interesting to me and if the power draws are similar, I would rather have more horsepower available in the 2100 if I need it. I am still trying to decide whether or not it is worth upgrading my current HTPC (underclocked / undervolted Q95500). It draws about 60W at idle and encoding power is a non issue now that I use another machine to handle that.

Thanks for the review. It was nice to see how efficient/fast the dual core Sandy Bridge is for common apps. I think it'll get interesting as the various mobile versions (aka laptops) start to get benchmarked-> faster than a 2 year old mainstream desktop and 25% of the power from the wall.

While mobo price can be competitive, the Intel CPUs are not worth in brazil. Also noted that new flagship from Intel always take more time to arrive here, while AMD ships same month of international release.

So i'm hoping for the next AMD generation

_________________Thou shalt help those in need, or thou shalt suffer the same need

Can SPCR lay their hands on a "fast" AMD CPU that costs either the same as the "slow" CPU reviewed, or an even "faster" AMD CPU so that the overall system cost is comparable to the Intel system, and then bench and review it and simply add it into the original review.

Its simply an unfair review as it stands, as the AMD buyer has more to spend on their CPU for the same build cost, and a very poor choice of CPU was made for the cost.

As you see here, the "AMD Phenom II X2 565" is actually more expensive than the "AMD Phenom II X4 840" which will destroy the former in any multi-threaded test. I know it wont do as well as the chosen CPU in others, likely the ones that rely purely on clock speed, or even rely heavily on cache, and it certainly wont do well on the power consumption.

But on the merits of power consumption alone you may as well compare the E-350 to the Core i3-2100, save a wad of money and be perfectly happy browsing the net and playing HD movies.

If the choice was made to compare these CPU's on clock speed alone then an old P4 could have been considered, and no doubt and entire working PC could have been bought for no more than the cost of is "similar clocked brethrens" CPU's alone.

Basically I think that the only sensible system comparisons should be made on price as it is what sways the average punter beyond anything else, including me.

Andy

PS: I am in no-way trying to suggest that the i3-2100 is a bad choice, it is obviously a very good CPU in many ways.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum